Orion's "apo"

http://www.telescope.com/jump.jsp?it...rID=237&KICKER

Interesting variation on normal Chinese focuser. This is probably a
good idea. I figure if Stellarvue can claim improved achromatism
for their 80mm (with the latest Dyer review in Sky and Tel
"confirming" it) there is definitely room for another scope to bridge
the gap between the Chinese achros and overpriced
American/Russian/Taiwanese made products.
-Rich

wrote in message
news

http://www.telescope.com/jump.jsp?it...ath=1%2C2%2 C
4%2C13&KickerID=237&KICKER

Interesting variation on normal Chinese focuser. This is probably a
good idea. I figure if Stellarvue can claim improved achromatism
for their 80mm (with the latest Dyer review in Sky and Tel
"confirming" it) there is definitely room for another scope to bridge
the gap between the Chinese achros and overpriced
American/Russian/Taiwanese made products.
-Rich

It will be fun to watch.

Regards SV, the problem is you never know what Stellervue is doing to reduce
the color. For a while they were stopping down the aperture (see Ed Ting's
review). Then they went to applying an MV coating to the objective and
calling it a "proprietary" and "attenuated design" rather than admitting
they were filtering it. The last SV I saw had an MV filter applied to the
objective, but the owner insisted it didn't because SV had told him so.

Aside from filtering or stopping down the aperture, unless you use different
(and more expensive) glass, you aren't going to reduce the color, regardless
of the "zonal control" g you achieve.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

"
Regards SV, the problem is you never know what Stellervue is doing to reduce
the color. For a while they were stopping down the aperture (see Ed Ting's
review). Then they went to applying an MV coating to the objective and
calling it a "proprietary" and "attenuated design" rather than admitting
they were filtering it. The last SV I saw had an MV filter applied to the
objective, but the owner insisted it didn't because SV had told him so.

Aside from filtering or stopping down the aperture, unless you use different
(and more expensive) glass, you aren't going to reduce the color, regardless
of the "zonal control" g you achieve.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

Chuck:

You're way behind the times and terribly misinformed there my friend.
The "stopping down the aperture" scenario affected ONLY the first 6
months of scopes produced and Vic indicated to his customers (I was
one of them) that there existed a problem with the 1 1/4" version (NOT
the 2" focuser version). Once the problem was resolved, he allowed
customers to send back their scopes for a retro-fit. For free. This
was WAY back in 2000. Very, very old news.

Now, as for the "attenuated design", this applied ONLY to the 102D and
not any of the other scopes Stellarvue produced. Sorry to disappoint
you there. The website, group site, and Stellarvue all indicated that
the minus violet coatings were only appled to that specific design
(102D) with the intent of reducing color. The latest version does not
have this coating, as Vic decided that it's easier (and less
expensive) to simply offer a filter that provides the same affect. It
was an interesting design and apparently worth the effort given the
reports provided by purchasers of the scope. Again, you're a bit
behind the times.

Try doing your homework before posting something intended to be
informative.

David

Hi Dave,

I did my homework. SV was selling scopes with reduced aperture and claiming
the reduced color was because of a "proprietary" design. They quit when they
got caught. Then they applied MV filters to the objective. Then they claimed
it was "attenuated" and not filtered (Sounds like Clinton and not having
"sex.") They also claimed the reduced color was due (again) to "proprietary"
design. That was BS. It was filtered --- pure and simple. There is nothing
wrong with using an MV filter coating. But there is something wrong with MV
filtering and claiming you are not doing it. Two months ago I was with an SV
owner. He insisted it did not have an MV filter and he knew this for a fact
because SV told him. But the coating was there.

Those are the facts.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

"Dave" wrote in message
om...
"
Regards SV, the problem is you never know what Stellervue is doing to
reduce
the color. For a while they were stopping down the aperture (see Ed
Ting's
review). Then they went to applying an MV coating to the objective and
calling it a "proprietary" and "attenuated design" rather than admitting
they were filtering it. The last SV I saw had an MV filter applied to
the
objective, but the owner insisted it didn't because SV had told him so.

Aside from filtering or stopping down the aperture, unless you use
different
(and more expensive) glass, you aren't going to reduce the color,
regardless
of the "zonal control" g you achieve.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

Chuck:

You're way behind the times and terribly misinformed there my friend.
The "stopping down the aperture" scenario affected ONLY the first 6
months of scopes produced and Vic indicated to his customers (I was
one of them) that there existed a problem with the 1 1/4" version (NOT
the 2" focuser version). Once the problem was resolved, he allowed
customers to send back their scopes for a retro-fit. For free. This
was WAY back in 2000. Very, very old news.

Now, as for the "attenuated design", this applied ONLY to the 102D and
not any of the other scopes Stellarvue produced. Sorry to disappoint
you there. The website, group site, and Stellarvue all indicated that
the minus violet coatings were only appled to that specific design
(102D) with the intent of reducing color. The latest version does not
have this coating, as Vic decided that it's easier (and less
expensive) to simply offer a filter that provides the same affect. It
was an interesting design and apparently worth the effort given the
reports provided by purchasers of the scope. Again, you're a bit
behind the times.

Try doing your homework before posting something intended to be
informative.

David

"Chuck Taylor" wrote in message ...
Hi Dave,

I did my homework.

If you did your homework, it was done a long time ago.
SV was selling scopes with reduced aperture for six months in the year
2000.

and claiming
the reduced color was because of a "proprietary" design.

The design is proprietary.

They quit when they
got caught.

Vic recognized it as a problem with the first design, notified the
users (before "they got caught"...whatever that means) and offered a
solution. After the focuser design was changed, the aperture masking
was eliminated.

Then they applied MV filters to the objective.

Only on the 102D. Why you keep insisting to imply that it was applied
on all scopes is a mystery...or maybe you have an alternative motive.

Then they claimed
it was "attenuated" and not filtered (Sounds like Clinton and not having
"sex.") They also claimed the reduced color was due (again) to "proprietary"
design. That was BS.

Your opinion. I think your opinion is BS. But so what.

It was filtered --- pure and simple.

Yes, in the 102D, as has been widely known for quite a while now.

There is nothing
wrong with using an MV filter coating. But there is something wrong with MV
filtering and claiming you are not doing it.

Point out to me ONE post, advertisement, email, whatever where
Stellarvue claimed that the coating was not applied to the 102D. Your
statements are completely false.

Two months ago I was with an SV
owner. He insisted it did not have an MV filter and he knew this for a fact
because SV told him. But the coating was there.

Was it a 102D? If so, then yes it had a slight MV coating. If the
scope was not a 102D, then he is correct and you are completely wrong.


Those are the facts.


Those are your opinions, obviously you have no idea what you are
talking about.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?

No, I wish I could but it's been way too cloudy here in middle TN!

Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

"Dave" wrote in message
om...
"
Regards SV, the problem is you never know what Stellervue is doing to
reduce
the color. For a while they were stopping down the aperture (see Ed
Ting's
review). Then they went to applying an MV coating to the objective and
calling it a "proprietary" and "attenuated design" rather than admitting
they were filtering it. The last SV I saw had an MV filter applied to
the
objective, but the owner insisted it didn't because SV had told him so.

Aside from filtering or stopping down the aperture, unless you use
different
(and more expensive) glass, you aren't going to reduce the color,
regardless
of the "zonal control" g you achieve.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

Chuck:

You're way behind the times and terribly misinformed there my friend.
The "stopping down the aperture" scenario affected ONLY the first 6
months of scopes produced and Vic indicated to his customers (I was
one of them) that there existed a problem with the 1 1/4" version (NOT
the 2" focuser version). Once the problem was resolved, he allowed
customers to send back their scopes for a retro-fit. For free. This
was WAY back in 2000. Very, very old news.

Now, as for the "attenuated design", this applied ONLY to the 102D and
not any of the other scopes Stellarvue produced. Sorry to disappoint
you there. The website, group site, and Stellarvue all indicated that
the minus violet coatings were only appled to that specific design
(102D) with the intent of reducing color. The latest version does not
have this coating, as Vic decided that it's easier (and less
expensive) to simply offer a filter that provides the same affect. It
was an interesting design and apparently worth the effort given the
reports provided by purchasers of the scope. Again, you're a bit
behind the times.

Try doing your homework before posting something intended to be
informative.

David

Yes, in the 102D, as has been widely known for quite a while now.

It is only widely known because Al M. of Sirius Optics was courgeous enough to
post that information right here on S.A.A. He was the one who did the
proto-type coatings on the first 102Ds.

Even today, it is ambiously stated on the SV webpage.

I think the problem now for SV is that Al M. has come up with his new filter
which uses a special glass to balance the MV filter and this seems to really
work quite well.

jon

"Chuck Taylor" wrote in message ...
Hi Dave,

I did my homework. SV was selling scopes with reduced aperture and claiming
the reduced color was because of a "proprietary" design. They quit when they
got caught. Then they applied MV filters to the objective. Then they claimed
it was "attenuated" and not filtered (Sounds like Clinton and not having
"sex.") They also claimed the reduced color was due (again) to "proprietary"
design. That was BS. It was filtered --- pure and simple. There is nothing
wrong with using an MV filter coating. But there is something wrong with MV
filtering and claiming you are not doing it. Two months ago I was with an SV
owner. He insisted it did not have an MV filter and he knew this for a fact
because SV told him. But the coating was there.

Those are the facts.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

"Dave" wrote in message
om...
"
Regards SV, the problem is you never know what Stellervue is doing to
reduce
the color. For a while they were stopping down the aperture (see Ed
Ting's
review). Then they went to applying an MV coating to the objective and
calling it a "proprietary" and "attenuated design" rather than admitting
they were filtering it. The last SV I saw had an MV filter applied to
the
objective, but the owner insisted it didn't because SV had told him so.

Aside from filtering or stopping down the aperture, unless you use
different
(and more expensive) glass, you aren't going to reduce the color,
regardless
of the "zonal control" g you achieve.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/


Chuck: You ever run the thing through a spectrophotometer? No? Didn't
think so. So tell me how you think you know that it was a MV filter on
there. Unless the owner modified the coatings, post-purchase, then
these are not filtered, save the 102D David mentioned. I wish that you
folks would just blow away, with the nonsense you continue to
purpetuate! FYI: I assisted Vic modify the original AT1010 design back
last century. When Vic went to the 2" version focusers, this
"vignetting" or cutoff/stopdown was a non-issue. Only a few dozen
scopes ever really had this issue. The later version 1.25" scopes were
running around 76mm of effective aperture - nearly the whole thing. If
1mm on the edge of the optic is considered stopping down severely to
control color, then give your head a shake. Use current facts, man!

Certainly someone of Mr. Dyer's experience and reputation would have
noticed stuff like this - coatings stopdowns. Nope, nothing seen
there. So use current facts and stop smokescreening issues. FYI. I own
a 102D as well. Yes these are attenuated coatings. Do you know what
attenuation is? Reduction of something, or dampening. What do filters
do? Reduce or eliminate in certain passbands. By their very nature,
filters attenuate. Time to pick up a dictionary and stop splitting
hairs. Maybe YOU should contact SV and fill them in on how they should
correctly present their products? Only then, would you be happy, yes?

Darren.

Hi Chuck,
I think that SV scopes are very good, but much too expensive. My 5"
f/9.3 ($238) will outrun any SV scope short of the TMB/SV 6" APO. The
new Orion ED80 should outperform the Blackhawk.

Arguing witha Stellarvuite is akin to arguing with a religious
fanatic. No common ground will be achieved.

Al M


"Chuck Taylor" wrote in message ...
Hi Dave,

I did my homework. SV was selling scopes with reduced aperture and claiming
the reduced color was because of a "proprietary" design. They quit when they
got caught. Then they applied MV filters to the objective. Then they claimed
it was "attenuated" and not filtered (Sounds like Clinton and not having
"sex.") They also claimed the reduced color was due (again) to "proprietary"
design. That was BS. It was filtered --- pure and simple. There is nothing
wrong with using an MV filter coating. But there is something wrong with MV
filtering and claiming you are not doing it. Two months ago I was with an SV
owner. He insisted it did not have an MV filter and he knew this for a fact
because SV told him. But the coating was there.

Those are the facts.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

"Dave" wrote in message
om...
"
Regards SV, the problem is you never know what Stellervue is doing to
reduce
the color. For a while they were stopping down the aperture (see Ed
Ting's
review). Then they went to applying an MV coating to the objective and
calling it a "proprietary" and "attenuated design" rather than admitting
they were filtering it. The last SV I saw had an MV filter applied to
the
objective, but the owner insisted it didn't because SV had told him so.

Aside from filtering or stopping down the aperture, unless you use
different
(and more expensive) glass, you aren't going to reduce the color,
regardless
of the "zonal control" g you achieve.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

Chuck:

You're way behind the times and terribly misinformed there my friend.
The "stopping down the aperture" scenario affected ONLY the first 6
months of scopes produced and Vic indicated to his customers (I was
one of them) that there existed a problem with the 1 1/4" version (NOT
the 2" focuser version). Once the problem was resolved, he allowed
customers to send back their scopes for a retro-fit. For free. This
was WAY back in 2000. Very, very old news.

Now, as for the "attenuated design", this applied ONLY to the 102D and
not any of the other scopes Stellarvue produced. Sorry to disappoint
you there. The website, group site, and Stellarvue all indicated that
the minus violet coatings were only appled to that specific design
(102D) with the intent of reducing color. The latest version does not
have this coating, as Vic decided that it's easier (and less
expensive) to simply offer a filter that provides the same affect. It
was an interesting design and apparently worth the effort given the
reports provided by purchasers of the scope. Again, you're a bit
behind the times.

Try doing your homework before posting something intended to be
informative.

David

"Al M" wrote in message
om...
Hi Chuck,
I think that SV scopes are very good, but much too expensive. My 5"
f/9.3 ($238) will outrun any SV scope short of the TMB/SV 6" APO. The
new Orion ED80 should outperform the Blackhawk.

Arguing witha Stellarvuite is akin to arguing with a religious
fanatic. No common ground will be achieved.

Al M

Unfortunately, I think you are probably right as regards many of them.
Fortunately that is not true of all of them.

But it's true of enough of them that I think I'm going to drop out of this
thread.

Clear Skies

Chuck Taylor
Do you observe the moon?
Try the Lunar Observing Group
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/lunar-observing/

(Al M) wrote in message . com...
Hi Chuck,
I think that SV scopes are very good, but much too expensive. My 5"
f/9.3 ($238) will outrun any SV scope short of the TMB/SV 6" APO. The
new Orion ED80 should outperform the Blackhawk.

Arguing witha Stellarvuite is akin to arguing with a religious
fanatic. No common ground will be achieved.

Al M



Al:

You really are something. Now, you think that SV scopes are good.
price was always a contention for you, well, there's no accounting for
this. Everyone has their financial "bar". That's why scopes come in a
variety of quality and price points.

However, I do remember a time when there was nothing anyone could have
said to you or your cronies to convince you of anything regarding the
line. You hopped on the side of the skeptics, and stayed there for a
considerable time. Then you flip-flop back and forth from "it's a
decent scope" to "the claims made by the manufaturer are outlandish" -
certainly, over simplifying, but I think that people looking
historically at your postings over the past 3 years can see this.

I do not even know why the issue of SV is in this thread, since it's
an Orion one, but since the gauntlet has been dropped, I am curious
why all of a sudden everyone feels justified in assuming all sorts of
performance related issues on this new Orion offering, which no one
has yet, nor observed through, and yet it was certainly fine to knock
SV scopes without looking through one, despite the countless positive
comments by owners who HAVE done so.

How would you assume that this Orion scope will outdo a SV Nighthawk
when no one has done a comparison yet? Unfounded drivel, as usual.

Darren.

[Zealot or not - those are the facts]